<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The belief that our ancestry matters to God has drawn the LDS Church into several kinds of awkward or ugly dogmas. Officially sanctioned racism was prominent in theology and church practice for a century and a half after Smith founded the religion. According to the story , a tribe of Israelites traveled to the Americas around 600 BCE, but split into two warring factions. The evil faction, the Lamanites, eventually killed off their righteous brethren and were punished with brown skins, becoming the forebears of Native Americans. Offspring of Adam’s son Cain (who murdered his brother) were cursed with even darker skin, became the forebears of Africans. Anyone with African blood was banned from the full privileges of Mormon membership until 1978 and Utah refused to celebrate MLK Day until 2000. Recent DNA research showing Native Americans to have Asian ancestry has caused consternation and even defections among science-minded Mormons.

Mormon Church leaders like Mitt Romney appear to have moved beyond the divinely sanctified racism of church history – at least when it comes to matters of skin color. But the issue of privileged bloodlines remains. In the Mormon version of the end times, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob will be gathered together into the land promised so long ago by Yehovah to a wandering band of Semites. The tribe of Judah will return to the land surrounding Jerusalem, but the tribe of Joseph (divided between Ephraim and Manasseh) as part of “10 lost tribes” will be gathered together in Zion, also called the New Jerusalem, centered in Jackson County, Missouri.

According to the Tenth Article of the Mormon Faith, this is not a spiritual metaphor: “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.”

Does Mitt Romney think he is a son of Abraham and that Zion will be his inheritance? It is hard to imagine otherwise. He worships a god who cares who your father was, and his father, and his father before him and who, in part, allocates blessings accordingly. Indeed, Mormon doctrine may offer a little insight into why Romney appears so untroubled by an America where fortunes increasingly are dictated by heredity.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>*The LDS Church, the dominant sect of the Mormon religion, supports polygamy or plural marriage only where it is allowed by law. It is assumed that some men will have multiple wives in heaven.</span>By: Valarie Tarico

</div></div>

LMAO! Multiple wives in heaven?

Sounds a lot like 17 virgins to me!

Sid_Vicious

08-05-2012, 09:28 AM

Everyone on all sides has to admit somewhere in the back of their minds that the world's invention of the afterlife is kinda bozo-land. As far as I understand from my upbringing, we won't even be in the same form in Heaven as we are here on earth, and everything is absolutely perfect in Heavan, so wouldn't all the wives be virgins anyway if you wanted them to be? If we aren't in the same physical form anymore, what would you do with a wife, she'd be arranged differently. All this is very hillarious, but it seems to charm the growing number of ignorant people.

The bottom line is most of the truly intelligent thinking beings of any kind, surely thinks this world and it's religions are all total nuts. The religious cultures around the world are embarrassingly silly to me. And to think...we DECIDE elections upon these odd ball myths! You couldn't make up a better zoo if you tried. Where's Bill M. when you need a good opinion ;-)

Nothing wrong with a woman wanting multiple husbands so she can be serviced in every orifice at the same time.
Safer than picking up strangers at a bar or participating in orgy's.

</div></div>

I think you crossed the line of common decency there.

Q </div></div>

I disagree.
By not allowing men or woman to marry multiple partners it is a form of oppression.
After all if you are not religious where is the moral or ethical argument against it?

Marriage based on a need for sexual fulfillment should be no less supported than say same sex unions.

After all if you are in favor of 2 men being able to marry and corn hole each other all day long should they choose why would would you be against a heterosexual arrangement that allows an individual to be completely sexually fulfilled if that is the the persons desire.
Its a pretty shallow reason to be sure. However being shallow is not a reason to prevent it.

Of course the divorse proceedings for finances, benefits, child support and alimony would be a real mess.

Qtec

08-08-2012, 08:23 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> By not allowing men or woman to marry multiple partners it is a form of oppression. </div></div>

By not allowing anyone to kill at will is a form of oppression, is it not?

Why can't I grow my own weed and smoke it?
Why can't I have my own cruise missile?

Q

Q

Gayle in MD

08-08-2012, 08:25 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as in life goes I see nothing wrong with polygamy in either direction.

Nothing wrong with a woman wanting multiple husbands so she can be serviced in every orifice at the same time.
Safer than picking up strangers at a bar or participating in orgy's.

</div></div>

I'm really disappointed in you, Sev.

You said you weren't going to write that sort of filth to me, anymore.

I had actually begun to think of you somewhat as a friend, since you agreed with me, that we would wipe the slate clean, make the effort to post respectfully to one another.

And since then we have had a few laughs together, and debated without perrsonal insults.

While your statements, I hope, don't measure as personal insults, I'm sure you could have made your point without the filth.

G.

Qtec

08-08-2012, 08:25 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Marriage based on a need for sexual fulfillment </div></div>

You can be fulfilled without having to get married!

The RW say that marriage is about starting a family.

Q

Sid_Vicious

08-08-2012, 08:28 AM

We should just start with legalized prostitution, regulate it with mandatory health checkups, and tax it. I wouldn't want more than one wife, but renting one for a night would be be nice when the one decides to not put out. Women can have their own prosti-men too. It makes a lot more sense than having lots of wives or husbands. I say, "Let's try it!" sid

Seems to me it was men who created marriage? Back when that happened, only the woman was married, the man just owned his wife, and had his mistresses as well. women were left to just grin and bear it, or end up starving, or worse.

That is what Repiglicans would like to bring back.

Now that they're trying to deprive women of birth control, and using anachronistic religion beliefs, as their justification, they can all go to prostitutes all of the time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif A woman only needs her own money, to have children. Men aren't necessarily part of the equasion, ad we are seeing more and more of that.

Women aren't going to go back to being chattle. Women usually aren't the ones who propose, either.

Relationships are very complex things, with many currents in the tide, but respect, not sex, is what holds a marriage together, through annything, and everything, respect, and shared values.

Some men understand this.

One would think that after all of the anti-Christian BS the right threw at the president, all because of something he never said, or even heard, which was stated in his Christian Churchthat Mormonism shouldn't be left off the table, and the Mormon history, and the similarities of the history of the Mormon faith, as regards the misogynistic history also of the radical muslims, could and should lead to some rational discussions.

Cultists usually don't want to talk openly about their religious secrets, and Romney is no exception.

Cultist religions with secrets are hugely suspect, IMO.

I believe there should be far more discussion regarding the Mormon religion. No one brings it up, anywhere, ever, as we are facing the first Mormon, as far as I know, to run for president.

Wonder why? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

G.

Sev

08-08-2012, 05:00 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as in life goes I see nothing wrong with polygamy in either direction.

Nothing wrong with a woman wanting multiple husbands so she can be serviced in every orifice at the same time.
Safer than picking up strangers at a bar or participating in orgy's.

</div></div>

I'm really disappointed in you, Sev.

You said you weren't going to write that sort of filth to me, anymore.

I had actually begun to think of you somewhat as a friend, since you agreed with me, that we would wipe the slate clean, make the effort to post respectfully to one another.

And since then we have had a few laughs together, and debated without perrsonal insults.

While your statements, I hope, don't measure as personal insults, I'm sure you could have made your point without the filth.

G.

</div></div>

They were not directed at you in the least.
Sorry if it appeared that way.
I was merely being very blunt.

However I do stand by what I have suggested.
People believe in abortion on demand for what ever reason.
It can be due to simple inconvenience, gender, health issues or for something as honorific as rape.
A woman is the queen of her body.

People demand gay marriage. I disagree with changing the definition of marriage however agree that civil unions should make everybody equal in the eyes of the law.

Its argued that same sex couples are perfectly capable to raise children without creating sociological problems.

So where is the ethical or moral dilemma for polygamy? It should be allowed in a civil union. The reason does not matter if it is just for sexual fulfillment, love or finances.
To not allow the pursuit of happiness between multiple consenting adults is a form of oppression.

Considering the where you stand on the previous matters I would think this would also be one that you would champion.

It is a matter of personal freedom that when taken in context of other rights that have been and are being fought for is no less valid than any other.

Gayle in MD

08-08-2012, 05:36 PM

K, Sev, glad to hear that. Sorry if I misjudged.

As for my post, it was really mostly a question. Why isn't the subject of Mormonism being discussed, anywhere?

What if we had a Muslim contender? Do you think there would be no discussion about it?

Do you see the difference between the way our president has been treated, and the seemingly complete acceptance by the right, of Romney's rather cultist religious beliefs, considered by many to be against Christian beliefs?

Some readily judge all Muslims, by the radical few, yet Mormonism seems similar in many ways, does it not?

As for my own opinions, I would never assume to judge or dictate how others must live their lives, as long as I see no harm to others. What two people choose to carve out together, is their own business.

My philosophy is, live and let live.

Walk softly, and carry a big stick.

Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them.

And when it comes to sexual preferences, to each his own. None of my business.

G.

eg8r

08-08-2012, 07:24 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What if we had a Muslim contender? Do you think there would be no discussion about it?</div></div>I don't think that after 9/11 a Muslim will ever have a chance here. Maybe I am wrong but it will surely be a very long time away. As for no talk about Mormons, I thought we had a few discussions that were started here but they never went anywhere. Some where to discuss if it is a cult or a truly just another "Christian" denomination but those fizzled.

I think that in this day and age even though most Americans call themselves Christian the fact of the matter is that this country does not act like it. So to try and get a story going on Mormonism to really get any headway in the mainstream media would probably fall on deaf ears. I just don't think there are enough people to really know enough about Christianity to be able to tell if Mormonism was a cult or not. Since he says he loves God, and most people don't really practice their religion they don't know any difference and take what he says as the equivalent of what they practice or believe.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some readily judge all Muslims, by the radical few, yet Mormonism seems similar in many ways, does it not?</div></div>While this is true, I think there is a growing number of people that are starting to really see the real problem which is the fact that none of the non-extremist Muslims dare speak out in public against the extremists. To an extent you see that here with extreme Christian pastors but on a local level I hear many non-extreme pastors speak out against what they are doing. Since we are not part of the Muslim religion we don't hear what the local imams are saying. Since 9/11 is still in the minds of most Americans and all the other terrorism happening around the world is by the religion of Islam it is hard for the average American to see or think any different.

eg8r

eg8r

Gayle in MD

08-09-2012, 05:05 AM

Well thank you Ed, for a well thought out reply. I'm impressed.

There is an article in Bloomberg Business week, this week, an interview with Romney.

Heard the author this morning talking about the interview.

Seems, according to the author, Josh, didn't catch his last name, but he said that Romney calmmed up when he started to ask questions about Mormonism. He said Romney hightailed it out of there ,and acted deeply uncomfortable over the subject.

Evangelicals do regard Mormonism as a cult, as not a Christian religion.

I wonder what's up with all of that? Word up is that Romney avoids the three M's, Mormonism, Massachusettes, and his Money.

As for my post, it was really mostly a question. Why isn't the subject of Mormonism being discussed, anywhere?

What if we had a Muslim contender? Do you think there would be no discussion about it?

Do you see the difference between the way our president has been treated, and the seemingly complete acceptance by the right, of Romney's rather cultist religious beliefs, considered by many to be against Christian beliefs?

Some readily judge all Muslims, by the radical few, yet Mormonism seems similar in many ways, does it not?

As for my own opinions, I would never assume to judge or dictate how others must live their lives, as long as I see no harm to others. What two people choose to carve out together, is their own business.

My philosophy is, live and let live.

Walk softly, and carry a big stick.

Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them.

And when it comes to sexual preferences, to each his own. None of my business.

G.
</div></div>

We dont have Muslim in the office???? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
I have my suspicion that Obama is actually an atheist. No evidence of it. Just a suspicion.

Seriously though we wont have a Muslin in the office any time in the near future. America wont forget 9-11 and Islam is thoroughly wrapped around that event.

There is a much better chance of a Japanese or a Jew being elected.

Cultish perhap. However the Mormons can not be accused of violent Jihads or crusades or of performing honor killings of their wives and children. Does the belief system have some peculiarities? Sure. So do a lot of other religions. So what?

I generally look at the disdain people have for the Mormons in the same light as people do the Jews. Its an ism of some sort. Our constitution guarantees the freedom of religion. The greater majority of Mormons do no harm to anybody. Unfortunately it does not prevent prejudices from rising.

Seems to me it was men who created marriage? Back when that happened, only the woman was married, the man just owned his wife, and had his mistresses as well. women were left to just grin and bear it, or end up starving, or worse.

That is what Repiglicans would like to bring back.

Now that they're trying to deprive women of birth control, and using anachronistic religion beliefs, as their justification, they can all go to prostitutes all of the time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif A woman only needs her own money, to have children. Men aren't necessarily part of the equasion, ad we are seeing more and more of that.

Women aren't going to go back to being chattle. Women usually aren't the ones who propose, either.

Relationships are very complex things, with many currents in the tide, but respect, not sex, is what holds a marriage together, through annything, and everything, respect, and shared values.

Some men understand this.

One would think that after all of the anti-Christian BS the right threw at the president, all because of something he never said, or even heard, which was stated in his Christian Churchthat Mormonism shouldn't be left off the table, and the Mormon history, and the similarities of the history of the Mormon faith, as regards the misogynistic history also of the radical muslims, could and should lead to some rational discussions.

Cultists usually don't want to talk openly about their religious secrets, and Romney is no exception.

Cultist religions with secrets are hugely suspect, IMO.

I believe there should be far more discussion regarding the Mormon religion. No one brings it up, anywhere, ever, as we are facing the first Mormon, as far as I know, to run for president.

Wonder why? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

G. </div></div>

Actually Maternal religions came first. That being the case it is more likely that woman started the concept.

Woman should never be chattel. However they are no more special than any male no mater what race or color. The playing field should of course be level.

However woman have to understand that if they are climbing the employment ladder there are penalties for leaving your job for an extended period of time.
Having a child does not make one special and there should be no special preferences extended because of it.
You can always choose to not have children. Some woman will and they will pass those woman that choose to have babies.

Lifes not meant to be easy or fair. Equal opportunity based on ones qualifications, abilities, work ethic and motivation should always be in play.
However trying to guarantee equal outcomes should never be.

hondo

08-09-2012, 06:03 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as in life goes I see nothing wrong with polygamy in either direction.

Nothing wrong with a woman wanting multiple husbands so she can be serviced in every orifice at the same time.
Safer than picking up strangers at a bar or participating in orgy's.

</div></div>

I'm really disappointed in you, Sev.

You said you weren't going to write that sort of filth to me, anymore.

I had actually begun to think of you somewhat as a friend, since you agreed with me, that we would wipe the slate clean, make the effort to post respectfully to one another.

And since then we have had a few laughs together, and debated without perrsonal insults.

While your statements, I hope, don't measure as personal insults, I'm sure you could have made your point without the filth.

G.

</div></div>

Sev is an ornery ole cuss, Gayle. As long as he doesn't direct them towards fellow forum members, I don't mind him being a little off color. Just my opinion.

Gayle in MD

08-10-2012, 07:53 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However the Mormons can not be accused of violent Jihads or crusades or of performing honor killings of their wives and children. Does the belief system have some peculiarities? Sure. So do a lot of other religions. So what?

Seems to me it was men who created marriage? Back when that happened, only the woman was married, the man just owned his wife, and had his mistresses as well. women were left to just grin and bear it, or end up starving, or worse.

That is what Repiglicans would like to bring back.

Now that they're trying to deprive women of birth control, and using anachronistic religion beliefs, as their justification, they can all go to prostitutes all of the time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif A woman only needs her own money, to have children. Men aren't necessarily part of the equasion, ad we are seeing more and more of that.

Women aren't going to go back to being chattle. Women usually aren't the ones who propose, either.

Relationships are very complex things, with many currents in the tide, but respect, not sex, is what holds a marriage together, through annything, and everything, respect, and shared values.

Some men understand this.

One would think that after all of the anti-Christian BS the right threw at the president, all because of something he never said, or even heard, which was stated in his Christian Churchthat Mormonism shouldn't be left off the table, and the Mormon history, and the similarities of the history of the Mormon faith, as regards the misogynistic history also of the radical muslims, could and should lead to some rational discussions.

Cultists usually don't want to talk openly about their religious secrets, and Romney is no exception.

Cultist religions with secrets are hugely suspect, IMO.

I believe there should be far more discussion regarding the Mormon religion. No one brings it up, anywhere, ever, as we are facing the first Mormon, as far as I know, to run for president.

Wonder why? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

G. </div></div>

Actually Maternal religions came first. That being the case it is more likely that woman started the concept.

<span style="color: #990000">But, they were, and the mentality behind it was religiously based. </span>

However they are no more special than any male no mater what race or color. The playing field should of course be level.

<span style="color: #990000">the difference being it is women who bring life into the world, and only women, are changed forever, physically, after the event. And changed emotionally, as well, in most cases. Additionally, in order to bring chaos to the masses, the first thing men know they must do, is control that very female, motherly instinct, control the bearers of the young generation, and weaken their rights, in order to prosecute inhumane treatment agaist whichever group of human beings they wish to conquer or control.</span>

However woman have to understand that if they are climbing the employment ladder there are penalties for leaving your job for an extended period of time.

<span style="color: #990000">Which is discrimination at its worst, given that women, for the most part, are raising the children of their husbands, who have traditionally been left off the hook for raising the children..while most woem in today's economic work in order to have enough money to take decent care of the children. May of them the bread winners in the family. the value of the jobs which women took, were downgraded across the globe, historically, because women would do anything to feed their children, and the sorts of jobs they could do physically, and still be able to take care of their children, were limited.</span>
Having a child does not make one special and there should be no special preferences extended because of it.

<span style="color: #990000">Equal pay for equal work, shouldn't be thought of a special preferences. Denying it to women, is discrimination, not a quest for special reward. </span>

You can always choose to not have children. <span style="color: #990000"> Always? No, not always.</span> Some woman will and they will pass those woman that choose to have babies. <span style="color: #990000"> Again, not always.</span>

Lifes not meant to be easy or fair. <span style="color: #990000">Life is NEVER fair, however, our quest is to avoid circumstances which make the playing field nondiscriminatory, without exploiting some. </span> Equal opportunity based on ones qualifications, abilities, work ethic and motivation should always be in play.
However trying to guarantee equal outcomes should never be. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Life is never fair, regardless of what societies aim for, however the goal is not and neverr has been to make life fair, the goal is to prevent discrimination, making exploitation of those who are struggling to rise, impossible.

IOW, removing obsticles which are persecuted against only some of the people. Equal opportunities for a decent education in a society in which taxes are paid by all of the people, is not the same thing as tryng to make life fair, at all. It is about avoiding setting up obstacles against only the women, or only certain ethnic groups. I'm sure you are aware that education was denied to women,, and people of color?

Is ending that phenomenon what you think of as wrong because it is more FAIR?

Organized religion was the originating source of misogyny, and racism. Mem wrote their little fairy tales, always aimed at blaming women for their human failures, and destroying those of color, for their evil natures. That cannot be denied, although the religiously unbalanced, continue to deny that it was wrong, and a lie.

Additionally, it doesn't change for the religously demented. I need only look at the vast amounts of money from out of state MORMONS, which flooded into California to prevent Gay rights to marry.

AGain, if organized religion demands and continues to intrude religious ideology into state issues, then they should give up their tax exempt status. That should be the law.

As for my post, it was really mostly a question. Why isn't the subject of Mormonism being discussed, anywhere?

What if we had a Muslim contender? Do you think there would be no discussion about it?

Do you see the difference between the way our president has been treated, and the seemingly complete acceptance by the right, of Romney's rather cultist religious beliefs, considered by many to be against Christian beliefs?

<span style="color: #990000">?????????????????????? </span>

Some readily judge all Muslims, by the radical few, yet Mormonism seems similar in many ways, does it not?

<span style="color: #990000">??????????????? </span>

As for my own opinions, I would never assume to judge or dictate how others must live their lives, as long as I see no harm to others. What two people choose to carve out together, is their own business.

My philosophy is, live and let live.

Walk softly, and carry a big stick.

Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them.

And when it comes to sexual preferences, to each his own. None of my business.

G.
</div></div>

We dont have Muslim in the office???? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
I have my suspicion that Obama is actually an atheist. No evidence of it. Just a suspicion.

<span style="color: #660000">Do you have the same suspicions about Ryan, McCain, Romney? </span>

Seriously though we wont have a Muslin in the office any time in the near future.

America wont forget 9-11 and Islam is thoroughly wrapped around that event.

<span style="color: #990000">No, not so. Radical Islam, not all Muslims approve it, and mayy work against it. Sikh among them. there is no difference between radical Christians and radical Muslims. Both religious organizations kill others. Mormons as well. </span>

There is a much better chance of a Japanese or a Jew being elected.

<span style="color: #990000">How did you arrive at that conclusion? </span>

Cultish perhap.

<span style="color: #990000">LOL, perhaps? </span>

However the Mormons can not be accused of violent Jihads or crusades or of performing honor killings of their wives and children.

<span style="color: #990000">See: the Mormon war in America. </span>

Does the belief system have some peculiarities? Sure. So do a lot of other religions. So what?

<span style="color: #990000">So what? So they are the source of hate, discrimation, misogyny, homophobia, economic exploitation, and inhumane war, throughout world history.</span>

I generally look at the disdain people have for the Mormons in the same light as people do the Jews.

<span style="color: #990000">And I look at the historical insanity and hatred of both religious philosophies as damaging to the world at large, as all religions have been. The claim of being The Chosen Ones, is, in and of itself, irrational, discriminatory, and radical. </span>

Its an ism of some sort. Our constitution guarantees the freedom of religion.

<span style="color: #990000">And freedom FROM religion. </span>

The greater majority of Mormons do no harm to anybody.

<span style="color: #990000">Really? Again, I do not agree, and cannot fathem how you arrived at that conclusion. Forcing ideologies upon one's children, handing down hatred, and radical ideology, isn't harming? From a psychological perspective, it is child abuse.</span>

Unfortunately it does not prevent prejudices from rising. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">As long as there does not exist a global acceptance which fully recognizes the vast damages ever and always prosecuted against humanity, by organized religion, prejudice will forever thrive.

Religion must be separate from government. Without that, neither survives.